A federal jury has ruled that Masimo’s smartwatches infringed on Apple’s design patents, specifically regarding the W1 Freedom smartwatch and its accompanying health module and charger. However, Apple was awarded only $250 in damages, the statutory minimum allowed.
This outcome suggests that Apple’s legal strategy may be focused more on pursuing significant remedies rather than immediate financial compensation, as it seeks to continue its case against Masimo through a jury trial.
The jury’s decision was limited to Masimo’s discontinued product, which significantly affects Apple’s claims of irreparable harm. Since the ruling pertains to a device no longer available, Apple faces challenges in arguing that it has suffered lasting damage due to the infringement.
While the nominal damages reflect a legal victory, the decision effectively removes Apple’s opportunity to secure an injunction against Masimo’s current products, a central goal of its lawsuit.
In light of the verdict, Masimo characterized the ruling as a success, particularly concerning the injunction that Apple sought against its existing product line.
A spokesperson for Masimo emphasized that the jury’s focus was on a product that is not currently on the market, thus shielding Masimo’s current smartwatches from potential legal challenges. This perspective highlights Masimo’s view that it has successfully defended its products against Apple’s claims.
This trial is part of a broader conflict between the two companies, with Masimo previously winning an import ban on specific Apple Watch models over issues related to pulse oximetry patents.
This earlier ruling had significant consequences for Apple, forcing the company to disable the blood oxygen monitoring feature in some of its latest smartwatch models sold in the U.S. Although this feature remains active in other countries, the ongoing legal disputes continue to affect Apple’s offerings domestically.
Throughout the trial, Apple representatives underscored that their goal was not just to seek monetary compensation but to prevent Masimo from copying their designs. Apple attorney John Desmarais reiterated this commitment to protecting intellectual property, emphasizing the extensive development that went into creating the Apple Watch.
An Apple spokesperson further stressed the contrast between Apple’s innovation process and Masimo’s approach, which they described as having taken shortcuts. This conflict highlights the intense competition between the two companies in the smartwatch market.
